Are you sure about that? 206 out of 208 Democrats voted against it, over 99%. Democrats are HEAVILY in favor of men competing in women's sports.
That math isn’t how politics work. The democrats have to vote against it to keep getting elected. It’s enough of a litmus test vote for enough democrats that they all have to vote against or they think they will get primaried.
You just proved the point that was being made. Democratic legislators must vote the way their Democratic constituents want them to vote or risk being replaced. 99% of their constituents are opposed to banning men in women's sports.
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
'Those against it said it could lead to intrusive genital examinations of the student-athletes.'
these people have totally lost the plot... anyone that plays high school sports is already subject to a physical examination which involves your genitals being examined... additionally if you are trans you've already subjected yourself to this on multiple occasions ... 206 clowns vs 218 based is not a good representation of how the country feels about this seemingly common sense issue ... at least it passed. Senate should do the same and anyone that votes 'no' should be subject to an intrusive brain examination.
Cis girls are already subject to transvestigation by vigilantes.
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
This bill is fundamentally flawed because it defines sex by "reproductive organs and genetics at birth." Are we going to conduct genetic tests on every single student who plays sports?
What if we discover someone who was assigned female at birth is genetically male? Kick her out of sports teams?
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
This bill is fundamentally flawed because it defines sex by "reproductive organs and genetics at birth." Are we going to conduct genetic tests on every single student who plays sports?
What if we discover someone who was assigned female at birth is genetically male? Kick her out of sports teams?
We can't ignore good policy because of the very few that will slip through the cracks. same idea with border policy. Right now, that crack is more like a crevasse and more than "very few" are coming through unabated
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
fwiw, there is only one group in the supreme court that judges based on ideology. the other group actually does it's job and attempts to interpret the constitution. It isn't a place for activism.
some people I know think that MAGA means "make libs cry" and "do insane crap just to mess with the status quo!" If that is your definition, then no.
Fair. it doesn't mean that to me, but Im quite sure it does to some.
The problem is that many dems think securing the border, keeping men out of women's sports, locking up criminals, etc. Is "insane crap." Like any other political party, the right does have some people that could be viewed as extremist. But most of the positions on the right are common sense. And liberals spin those common sense positions into "hate" and "extremism". This is all to rile up their base and make all right leaning decisions look bigoted or insane when they aren't. This issuse is but just one example.
That is not really "M@ga" because something like 70% of Democratic voters also support that. This is just common sense. Glad to hear it is happening.
Why did only 2 Dems vote for it?
It's like guns. A majority of gun owners want more gun restrictions like universal background checks and red flag laws. But Republicans in Congress never support such legislation because a small but very active part of their base will insist they go against pretty much any gun restriction.
Same thing here. A small but active part of the Democratic base will insist that Democrats vote against a law like that.
Since most voters do not base their votes on guns or transgender athletes, you have a small portion of the population swaying Congressional voting, while the rational middle gets ignored.
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
fwiw, there is only one group in the supreme court that judges based on ideology. the other group actually does it's job and attempts to interpret the constitution. It isn't a place for activism.
Actually there are two groups that vote based on solely on ideology -- a right group and a left group. You know pretty much without even understanding the merits of a case how Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor will vote (and maybe Jackson but it is still a little early to tell).
As many have previously mentioned, the legislation now will be taken up by the US Senate where there will be 53 Rep and 47 Dem. Now assuming that the supporters of the legislation can mount an opposition to a filibuster with 60 votes and the bill passes the Senate. It will then need the President's signature which most likely will be the easiest part of the process.
The next stage will take years to settle as court cases will contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Every sentence will be dissected and argued in each court through state and federal appellate courts until eventually reaching the US Supreme Court (presently a 6-3 split in ideology.) It's a marathon not a sprint to a resolution.
I doubt the Supreme Court will address an issue that affects such a tiny population of people. The NCAA director said that he’s aware of 10 transgender athletes. At the HS level, the issue is resolving itself. Theirs is so much hostility towards those athletes that fewer and fewer will want to compete. At the professional level, the only athlete that competed at the highest level, was Renee Richards.
That math isn’t how politics work. The democrats have to vote against it to keep getting elected. It’s enough of a litmus test vote for enough democrats that they all have to vote against or they think they will get primaried.
You just proved the point that was being made. Democratic legislators must vote the way their Democratic constituents want them to vote or risk being replaced. 99% of their constituents are opposed to banning men in women's sports.
It only takes about 60% of a party (or 30% of the country) to drive almost complete issue conformity within that party if that 60% of a party makes the issue a litmus test in the primary.
In other words, 99% of a party’s legislators voting one way does not mean 99% of their party wants that. It just means they think they have to vote that way to win their primary (I.e. get 51% of their party to vote for them).
You just proved the point that was being made. Democratic legislators must vote the way their Democratic constituents want them to vote or risk being replaced. 99% of their constituents are opposed to banning men in women's sports.
It only takes about 60% of a party (or 30% of the country) to drive almost complete issue conformity within that party if that 60% of a party makes the issue a litmus test in the primary.
In other words, 99% of a party’s legislators voting one way does not mean 99% of their party wants that. It just means they think they have to vote that way to win their primary (I.e. get 51% of their party to vote for them).
This is politics 101 on why are parties are getting so extreme and there are so few moderates in either party who get elected, relative to the actual voter preferences.
That is not really "M@ga" because something like 70% of Democratic voters also support that. This is just common sense. Glad to hear it is happening.
206 of 209 House Democrats voted against this bill - exactly the kind of silliness that got Trump reelected.
Exactly. I'm no Trump fan, but as a former female athlete, current coach of a girls' basketball team, and mother of three girls, and fan of women's sports, this issue is very important to me. The current status quo with male state champions of girls' sports in my state (Washington) is completely unacceptable.
If Democrats had a problem with the specific wording of the bill, they could have worked with Republicans to come up with a version that would not in fact lead to genital exams (no way that was a likely outcome of the current bill, but whatever). But instead, they just all voted against it . . . because they're actually in support of "including" transgender girls / women in girls and women's sport. Now, they will filibuster and prevent this bill from passing the Senate. Then they'll complain some more about how Republicans are bigots and racists while girls lose athletic championships and opportunities at all levels to boys.
'Those against it said it could lead to intrusive genital examinations of the student-athletes.'
these people have totally lost the plot... anyone that plays high school sports is already subject to a physical examination which involves your genitals being examined... additionally if you are trans you've already subjected yourself to this on multiple occasions ... 206 clowns vs 218 based is not a good representation of how the country feels about this seemingly common sense issue ... at least it passed. Senate should do the same and anyone that votes 'no' should be subject to an intrusive brain examination.
I played a sport through Division I, and never had my genitals examined as a condition of participation
Exactly! Every time this subject comes up it's so creepy. Old GOP men are obsessed with inspecting teenager's genitals. Probably a 50/50 split on which set they hope to find.
I haven't read the entirety of the bill and bills can often contain wording or not enough wording to have it not passable but the complaints seem to be stemmed from the powerful LGBTQ lobby which can't be ignored even if they haven't a clue on this subject and the fact that the bill seems to be in reference to all ages.
The LGBTQ issue is similar to the Gun rights issue from the right's perspective in that they don't want to give an inch because they think all of their rights will be removed eventually.
I posted the text of the bill in its entirety on page 1 of this thread (post #13). It's not a long bill, nor is the wording unclear IMO. Here's what it says in full:
H. R. 28 To amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2025 Mr. Steube (for himself, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Estes, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Finstad, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Fulcher, Ms. Mace, Mr. Ogles, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Gooden, Mr. Meuser, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Owens, Mr. Ciscomani, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Ezell, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Self, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr. Babin, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Bost, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Guest, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Ellzey, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Bean of Florida, Mr. Green of Tennessee, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Comer, Mr. Hudson, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Moore of West Virginia, Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina, Mr. Crank, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. Smith of Missouri, and Mr. Burlison) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce ------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. Section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(d) (1) It shall be a violation of subsection (a) for a recipient of Federal financial assistance who operates, sponsors, or facilitates an athletic program or activity to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.
“(2) For the purposes of this subsection, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
“(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘athletic programs and activities’ includes, but is not limited to, all programs or activities that are provided conditional upon participation with any athletic team.
“(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.
“(5) The Comptroller General shall carry out a study to determine the meaning of the phrase ‘any other benefit’ as used in paragraph (4) by looking at benefits to women or girls of participating in single sex sports that would be lost by allowing males to participate. The study shall document the adverse psychological, developmental, participatory, and sociological results to girls of allowing males to compete, be members of a sports team, or participants in athletic programs, that are designed for girls, including displacement or discouragement from sports participation, deprivation of a roster spot on a team or sport, loss of the opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, loss of a scholarship or scholarship opportunities, loss or displacement of admission to an educational institution, deprivation of the benefit of an environment free of hostility based on sexual assault or harassment, or loss of any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletics program or activity. Further, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Education and Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains the results of such study.”
That math isn’t how politics work. The democrats have to vote against it to keep getting elected. It’s enough of a litmus test vote for enough democrats that they all have to vote against or they think they will get primaried.
You just proved the point that was being made. Democratic legislators must vote the way their Democratic constituents want them to vote or risk being replaced. 99% of their constituents are opposed to banning men in women's sports.
Absolutely false. I know a great deal of liberal minded people and 100% of them are opposed to men in girls sports. I would argue 95% of america is as well. At least 95 % of democrats are against men in girls sports. This was another example of my party being out of touch. When nearly the whole party votes against the will of nearly the whole population (esp independents) , you should expect to lose to retardo. GOP tried to horn in anti gay marriage legislation for 8 years around the turn of 2000 and paid for it at the polls. Nobody cares if gay people get married, there is no downside.
